About the fighter... again

[ambu]

I am not sure if I should be posting here or in the homebrew setting, so let me start with an apology if I have posted in the wrong forum.

I am a long time lurker in several forums of D20. In almost all of them, most players regard the fighter class as underpowered, compared to most other standard classes. I belong to the camp that says that you should play a class because it fits the concept you have in mind, not because it can beat another class in an arena match. However, I also see the merit of the opinion that if you are struggling to be useful then it severely limits your playing fun, rollplaying or roleplaying-wise.

So I believe that fighter need to revisit the drawing board and I am willing to give it a try. I will start with the following presuppositions:
- The fighter's flavor must be preserved. That means it must also be somewhat defined first.
- The fighter must not step into other classes' toes. It must be a class with something unique to play
- I do not believe that I am more capable than the designers of WoC. Thus, I will try to incorporate elements already existing, if at all possible. In the proposal below, I have used many ideas from the fighter discussion thread in WoC boards and especially from the ideas of Seerow.

So, where do we begin? Let's start with flavor. The PH says "The questing knight, the conquering overlord, the king's champion, the elite foot soldier, the hardened mercenary and the bandit king-a ll are fighters.... fighters can be soldiers, guards, bodyguards, champions or criminal enforcers." And later:" Of all the classes, the fighter has the best all around capabilities" althought that really did not need clarification.

Where does that leave us? The fighter must be the master of combat and be able to fill many roles, not necessary simultaneously. This ties nicely with our second presupposition because what the fighter has is versatility. He gets many many feats. That is his most defining characteristic. This is what we should encourage.

What are the flaws the fighter has, according to most? First, in higher levels he is outshined by the cleric, if the cleric wants to. Secondly, there are precious little he can do outside of combat.
As for the first, well, since the advence of the PHII there are many feats that make the fighter somewhat more capable at higher levels. But there is also the skills problem. To address all the above I look into what the designers have done. Monte Cook, in his variant PH Arcana Evolved has gone with the route of giving specific capabilities in specific levels, in addition to upping the die to d12. The Nine Swords book has the Warblade, who also has d12, more skill points and some very interesting capabilities. Let's see what I propose:

CHANGE ONE: The fighter gets better saves.
CHANGE TWO: The levels the fighter does not get a feat, he should get an ability.
CHANGE THREE: The fighter must get something skill wise. His list broadens to include Gather information, Spot, Listen and Survival. These are two reflect the background from which he came. The guards usually know their city and have contacts within. Guards and sentries must be able to.. guard. And soldiers learn something of living of the land, maybe even become trackers. I do not think the above steal the thunder of the rogue or the ranger.

FINAL CUT

FIGHTER
Alignment: Any.
Hit Die: d10.
Saves: Fort good, reflex and will medium

Class Skills
The fighter’s class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Climb, Craft, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Jump, Ride, Swim Gather information, Spot, Survival

Skill Points at 1st Level: (4 + Int modifier) x4.
Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 4 + Int modifier.

Table: The Fighter
Level Special
1st Bonus feat, Weapon aptitude
2nd Bonus feat
3rd Learning ease, Height of battle 1/day
4th Weapon specialization
5th Bonus feat
6th Bonus feat
7th Armor specialization
8th Bonus feat, Height of battle 2/day
9th Take the high ground
10th Bonus feat
11th Armored mobility
12th Greater weapon specialization
13th Bonus feat,Height of battle 3/day
14th Bonus feat
15th Greater armor specialization
16th Bonus feat
17th Learning mastery
18th Bonus feat,Height of battle 4/day
19th Greater learning mastery
20th Bonus feat

Class Features
All of the following are class features of the fighter.
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: A fighter is proficient with all simple and martial weapons and with all armor (heavy, medium, and light) and shields (including tower shields).

Bonus Feats: At 1st level, a fighter gets a bonus combat-oriented feat in addition to the feat that any 1st-level character gets and the bonus feat granted to a human character. The fighter gains an additional bonus feat at 2nd level and at fighter levels as given in the table. These bonus feats must be drawn from the feats noted as fighter bonus feats. A fighter must still meet all prerequisites for a bonus feat, including ability score and base attack bonus minimums.
These bonus feats are in addition to the feat that a character of any class gets from advancing levels. A fighter is not limited to the list of fighter bonus feats when choosing these feats.

Weapon aptitude: As the warblade

Learning ease: The fighter can add half his fighter level, rounded up, into any of his stats in order to qualify for any feat that has attribute requirements.

Height of battle: When not flatfooted, the fighter can substitute his TOTAL save modifier with another save. This ability works 1 battle+ 1/5 additional levels

Weapon specialization: The fighter gets the benefit of weapon specialization for any weapon he has weapon focus.

Armor specialization: The fighter chooses an armor or shield category. He gets +1 AC and -1 reduction to armor check penalties when using these category of armor or shield.

Take the higher ground: The opponents of the fighter do not gain a bonus from fighting from higher ground or from fighting mounted unless they have this ability themselves.

Armored mobility: The fighter no longer suffers any reduction to his speed due to his armor.

Greater Weapon specialization: The fighter gets the benefit of greater weapon specialization for any weapon he has weapon focus and greater weapon focus.

Greater armor specialization: The fighter's AC bonus with his chosen armor or shield category becomes +2 and his armor check penalty reduction become -2.

Learning mastery: Once per day, as a standard action, the fighter can designate a number of feats equal to his level/3 and swap them with other feats of equal power. Equal power feats are considered feats that have equal or lower skill rank and BAB requirements with those swapped. A fighter must meet all requirements of the feats he chooses, even of the requirements are fulfilled by swapped feats. The fighter must have witnessed the effects of the swapped feats in action. This effect lasts for
a number of consecutive battles up to (fighter levels)/4 each day.

Greater learning mastery: The effects of learning mastery do not need to be applied to consecutive battles in a given day.

[ken-do-nim]

I like it a lot! One thing that jumps to mind that I would change is gather information as a class skill. How about knowledge (local) instead? Not to mention knowledge (nobility).

[ambu]

Thanks Kendonim for the kind words. Well, I would add a Knowledge skill in the fighter's skill also bit Gather Information is a Social skill, that I believe fighter is sorely lacking. Thus, I would keep Gather Information in the class skills list.

[ken-do-nim]

Remember that 5 ranks in knowledge local gives a +2 synergy to gather information checks. So in the fighter/guard's hometown area, he can gather information better than he can outside of it. I think that makes a certain amount of sense.

The other thing I wanted to point out was that learning mastery, while being extremely neat, could slow the game down as the player pours through the books to read these new feats carefully. It would have a similar effect that polymorph has to the gaming table.

[ambu]

Very very true Kendorim. But by then, the PCs are very high levels and the DM could ask the player to come to the table with all the changes ready. Also, the character must have seen the feat in action. I believe that some kind of understanding can be reached between the DM and the player. After all, most feat trees are quite known by now.

[jlousivy]

learning mastry/greater learning mastry- too powerful, the fighter already has an enourmous amount of feats, this would essentially let him do whatever he pleases, ie: wielding any weapon of his choosing with weapon focus, weapon specialization, greater weapon focus, greater weapon specialization.. all by swapping out 2 feats due to the 'free weapon specialization and greater weapon specialization

height of battle- can you explain this for me?

bonus feats should still be linked to fighter bonus feat list.
no reason a fighter just being able to fight well and learn fighting skills should be able to get bonus feats for metamagic, item creation, etc
the reason the bonus list is restricted to certain feats is because those are the types of things fighters learn by fighting

The saves.... i can agree with the 'medium' reflex saves, but fighters aren't so inclined to have great will saves,

i do like the idea of having special things added, it makes him more fun to play

this does not however fix the problem of 'wizards > fighters' or whatever
Without supplementing the fighter with spells/spell-like abilities/SR i don't know if u can 'balance them' ^^^none of which would be fair at all

just my 2 cents

[Raum]

It looks pretty good overall, just have a couple comments. First, there is no standard "medium" save preogression. So you may just want to give him good Fort and Ref with a poor Will as the save progression. If you're going to stick with a nonstandard pregression it needs to be enumerated. Second, on Learning Mastery / Greater Learning Mastery, you probably need to specify that the fighter needs to remain qualified for all his feats not just the ones he's switching to. I'd also consider making one (or both) capable of switching out a feat permanently...maybe requiring a day of training per feat.

On Height of Battle, is there a limit to how many times he can use it? I'm not clear on what you meant by "...works one battle...". For clarity, you might consider switching it out with the Mettle ability.

[ambu]

Thanks to all for their time.
The medium save progression was introduced I believe by Monte Cook. It works something like +1, +1, +2, +2, +2, +3, +3 and tops to +8 at 19th level and +9 at 20. I believe that the fighter should get good saves and especially in Will. Why not? In ADD the fighter had the best saves and now he has gone to worst. I originally was on the two good saves camp, but that only made the class dipping problem worse. So I opted for two medium saves and the Height of Battle ability.
The Height of Battle essentially lets the fighter substitute saves a specified number of times under certain circumstances. For example, Darius, the dwarven fighter is 4th level and has a total Fort save of +7. During the third round of combat he gets targeted by a spell requiring him to make a Will save. His player announces that he will use the Height of Battle ability to roll a Fort save instead. Darius grunts as his mental stability is assaulted but bites his lips until they get bloody, focusing on his pain and pushing the assault away. If he gets assaulted again the next round he cannot use the ability again. If that had happened at the first round of combat, where he was flatfooted, he would also not be able to use it.

As for the feats, well of course they should be from the fighter bonus list. My mistake. Ditto for Raum 's point.

[Raum]

Arcana Unearthed / Evolved is hardly standard. You'll limit your audience by using material from non-WotC sources.

On Height of Battle, I'd recommend using a per day mechanic instead of per battle. It avoids the issue of deciding where one battle ends and the next begins.

[JaronK]

Learning Mastery and Greater Learning Mastery seem overly complicated. Perhaps a simpler version would be based on the Chameleon concept:

Learning Mastery: A fighter may chose one "floating" feat. This feat may be any [fighter] feat that the fighter qualifies for. This feat may not be used as a prerequisite for any other feat or prestige class. The fighter may change this feat to any other [fighter] feat he qualifies for by spending one hour in meditation and practice, during which time he can do nothing else.

Greater Learning Mastery: The fighter's flexibility in combat strengthens. He may chose a second floating feats, following all the rules for the floating feat given by Learning Mastery. This second feat may use the first floating feat as a prerequisite, though no other feat or PrC may use either of the floating feats as such. If the first feat is a prerequisite for the second and the first feat changes, the fighter must at that time change the second feat as well to a legal choice. The fighter may change one or both feats by spending one hour in mediation and practice, as in Learning Mastery.

JaronK

[Jalil]

^^^ I agree. I do think that the fighter needs work, and i like what you've done with it, gives it a flavor, rather than a stack of feats.

[Quirinus_Obsidian]

A fighter with an ability other than a fighter feat makes another class. some people look at the fighter in the wrong light. To some of us, the Fighter is the best class ever. To others, it is merely a way to get a couple quick feats, a better FORT save, and +2 to their bab. I do not beleive that the fighter was designed to be a 20 level character; it is meant to be a base class for going into something else, such as Dervish. The Fighter class is a means to an end. Literally.

[Skyserpent]

What about Barbarians? THEY are underpowered now. In comparison to other Melee Classes. The Knight and the Warblade both have d12 hit dice and much better abilities! Well... at least the warblade does.

[D'Artagnan]

I like your concept a lot! It definitely makes the fighter much more versatile.

[ambu]

Once again thanks for the replies. I will try to answer each case separately:

Raum, I do not really understand your objection. The 'medium' save pops up frequently and I have seen it many forums, the WoC included. I cannot see eye to eye with your objection to it just because it is non-core. I believe it is usable and it should be judges on each own merit. The Cook reference was to highlight that people intimately familiar with the d20 use it

JaronK your suggestion has merit but the floating feat makes the problem of adjusticating the use of the ability bad. Any feat will do? Prerequisites are needed? If yes, it is useless, if not it is very powerful. I believe that the whole feat chain must change and the preparation needs doing only once. It is not more difficult that choosing spells, I believe. Just my 2cp.

Quirinius, I did not get the gist of your argument. If you believe that the fighter SHOULD be a dip-only class, I strongly disagree and let's leave it at that. If you believe the opposite and think that the fighter is great as it is, OK you do not need this thread. But I disagree with your assessment that adding anything to the fighter other than feats alters the flavor of the class. Versatility, the option that the many feats try to encompass, can be covered with other, more distinguished methods, as I have tries to show above.

Skyserpent, I do not know if the barbarian is underpowered. The barbarian has things to do outside of combat and has many distinguished abilities, making the class unique as written. Maybe it needs a slight power boost maybe it doesn't. Any suggestions?

D' Artagnan, I am glad you enjoy my compilation!

[Behold_the_Void]

I personally favor giving Fighters good Will and Fortitude saves. Think about it, how often in popular fiction do you see the highly skilled warrior fall under the control of a mind-affecting spell? They seem to be really good at throwing those effects off.

That right there would also make it that much more difficult for Wizards to get the edge on them.

[Aximili]

Do not give fixed extra class-skills. The fighter flavor is way to varied. Allow him to choose 4 new class skills.

And I support JaronK's idea. o/

[the_tick_rules]

i like it, i like it alot. maybe at 20th or some other high level he could apply ac to touch attacks. make touch attacks, very popular sorcerer spells, almost sure to miss.

[RandomNPC]

maybe weapon spec. and aromor spec. at 5th and 7th respectively, and like tick rules said, at a level (i'd say 9th or 11th) apply total AC to touch attacks.

i feel the floating feat idea goes a little to far. but maybe a focus/specialization relation. like at 10th level all applying feats to a specific weapon apply to a second weapon that has a relation. for example if you compare damage and size the sword relation goes like this :
dagger, shortsword, longsword, bastard sword, greatsword.
scimatar and falchion are arguable scince they are curved, but most weapons are related to other weapons in some way. if that goes to far this ability could be limited to only one related weapon, chosen at the time the ability is gained.

also, on the armor specialisation, would it be +1 AC -1 check penalty, or +1AC and max Dex, -1 check penalty? i beleive max dex could be left alone, but allowing that change would give a good reason why entire batalions wear full plate in some of these stories i read.

i like the idea, but i have yet to see a wizard get totally out of control. i understand it does happen, and a wizard with the right things can get out of hand for anyone, but if the rest of the players and the DM sit around letting it happen, somethings wrong. I've got a player whos afraid to use the last dammage spell on his prepared list, just in case he needs it later.

[Aximili]

I've got a player whos afraid to use the last dammage spell on his prepared list, just in case he needs it later.

Tell him to save the last Teleport spell instead. Much safer.

[ambu]

Thanks again for the nice words.

Tick and RandomNPC the touch AC idea is nice, where would you consider using it? Maybe if I merge learning mastery and Greater learning mastery and give that ability to 20th level? Would that be what you had in mind?

Aximili, your idea is nice but that is just a way to say: All skills are class skills. It is I believe a little too much.

[Marius]

The problem with your fighter is that it doesn't solve the problem. Not only doesn't solve it but it also unbalances the fighter making him more powerful than the other non-full-caster classes. So now you still have the problem you had before and a new one.

[Matthew]

Hmmn. I think I might agree with Marius about this. A cleaner Feat progression and free Specialisation is about the only thing I would change with regard to the Fighter. It's already a great Base Class and Spring Board.

(I think I would give everyone more Skill Points and Class Skills or just divorce the system from Levels altogether)

[ambu]

Marius and Matthew, how so? What is the problem that doesn't solve? I believe that the fighter I propose has some utility outside of combat and holds his own better in the upper levels. I do not know if that is sufficient but I believe it is definitely better. And once again, I disagree with the notion that the fighter SHOULD be just a dip class. If you think so fine but I start from a different angle: I want fighter to be playable at all levels.

[Matthew]

I just already think Fighters are pretty much fine. If you want to increase their powers at later levels, you need to do the same for all the other Non Caster Base Classes. The genericness of the Fighter and his potential for customisation is what makes the Base Class attractive (to me).

[Marius]

A high level wizard could still cast a chain disjuntion and a quickened forcecage using rods of metamagic and your fighter can't do anything about it. The Druid and the cleric are still better then your fighter too. But now your fighter is overpowered when you compare it with a rogue, a ranger, a barbarian, etc.
I also disagree with the notion that a fighter should be a 2 level dip but your take on the fighter doesn't fix the base problem of unbalance in d&d.

[The White Knight]

I like the idea of making the fighter-only feats (weapon spec., GWF, GWS, etc) automatic class features instead of feats (and perhaps even some things like armor specialization). I think those can be implemented without skewing things too much. That's where I'd leave it, though... adding additional class features might just end up leaving classes like Knight, Paladin and Ranger in the dust. Maybe not, though. I can't really tell.

[ambu]

Well I see your point now, but we aim at different things. I also believe that wizards are still more powerful but I am not aiming to change DnD so much. I believe that for example Arcana Evolved exists for those who want more equality to the classes, caster of reasonable power etc etc. I was aiming at creating a fighter who would be fun to play, without being underpowered to anything that moves or crawls. The rogue, the barbarian, the ranger, they all have features that make them distinct. I wished for the fighter to have something similar while keeping its genericness and its flavor. So yes, I did not fix the whole DnD. I do believe I proposed a fighter variant that is somewhat better than the original. And if you believe that the fighter is so far behind, so come you advocate that 'fighter is fine as it is?'
Please, I am not trying to be antagonistic, just wondering... I will be happy if the majority believes that my proposal is better than the original fighter.

[Matthew]

No problem. I think the Fighter is 'just fine' in comparison to the other Non Casters; it's just my opinion, though. I have, overall, found it easier to nerf the Casters, rather than power up the other Classes.

To me, the Fighter is currently capable of supporting just about any warrior-type concept. The only things that rub me up the wrong way are the Skills and Skill Points (but that's a more widespread issue anyway) and the way that Specialisation is handled.

[Marius]

Well I see your point now, but we aim at different things. I also believe that wizards are still more powerful but I am not aiming to change DnD so much. I believe that for example Arcana Evolved exists for those who want more equality to the classes, caster of reasonable power etc etc. I was aiming at creating a fighter who would be fun to play, without being underpowered to anything that moves or crawls. The rogue, the barbarian, the ranger, they all have features that make them distinct. I wished for the fighter to have something similar while keeping its genericness and its flavor. So yes, I did not fix the whole DnD. I do believe I proposed a fighter variant that is somewhat better than the original. And if you believe that the fighter is so far behind, so come you advocate that 'fighter is fine as it is?'
Please, I am not trying to be antagonistic, just wondering... I will be happy if the majority believes that my proposal is better than the original fighter.

Sure, the rest of the classes have their features but they aren't more powerful. I don't like some of your changes too. Why they get better saves? You want better will saves? Take the Iron Will feat. I agree to give them 4 skill points per level but why do they get Gather information? And survival? That's just stepping on barbarian territory.
I would change the "learning ease" feature from "any feat" to "any fighter feat".
"Height of battle" it's ok
Armored mobility is just ilogic I don't think anyone should get it.
I also don't like "learning mastery"
If you want a better fighter use this one: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=169285
That class also has some abilities that I don't like but it's hard to satisfy everyone.